DoG's Test Team Ratings - Throughout History

I have been waiting for the right time to present these, and after noticing a thread on similar lines the other day, I thought I'd share my ratings of test teams from 1877 to the present day.

I basically assign points to each team over a five year period before and after a specific year, with the results from the year in question receiving more weight, with the weightage gradually diminishing from there. Points are awarded depending on strength of opposition, individual match and series results, and whether the match or series was played in home or away conditions.

For example, here are the ratings from 1997/98 (a year starts in September and ends in August)

Australia had a fairly comfortable lead at the top and the West Indies had already dropped down the table rapidly after being on top in 1992/93 (Contrary to what is tradionally written, I already had Australia on top before they travelled to the West Indies in early 1995).

Compare that to the current ratings (note that the five year period extends back to 2008/09as we cannot obviously see the results in the future).

So, there we have it. Exactly the same as the official ICC rankings, but with Zimbabwe ahead of Bangladesh. Interesting, Sri Lanka have their lowest points rating since 1994/95. On the other hand, West Indies have their highest points rating since 2000/01.

But I can give you the rankings of the test teams from any year/season in the history of the game, so if you are interesting in any year in particular, or decade, even, please post your query in this thread and I will reply.

For now, I will post the top teams by the ratings they achieved:

Australia (2001/02): 111.60
West Indies (1962/63): 104.54
West Indies (1988/89): 103.49 (the West Indies team of the 1980s obviously had a longer period of high ratings then their predecessors did, even if the 1960s vintage achieved the higher peak rating due to playing and beating arguably stronger opposition)
Australia (1972/73): 100.22
Australia (1958/59): 99.74
England (1954/55): 99.42
Australia (1921/22): 98.92
South Africa (2011/12): 98.82
South Africa (1969/70): 98.76
England (1932/33): 98.02
England (2010/11): 96.57
Australia (1933/34): 95.75
England (1911/12): 95.52

Pakistan (1986/87): 90.00

India (2008/09): 89.97 (India has never achieved the no.1 ranking on my system, although they came very close in 2008/08 with South Africa on 90.30 and Australia 90.25)

And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

I should add that a team's batting and bowling averages over the five year period also factor into their overall ratings.

The 1979/80 New Zealand side had a rating of 58.45. They were only at the beginning of a very good period.

@ Morgieb: Very good question. I haven't really thought about that. But, New Zealand beating the West Indies in 1979/80, England beating South Africa in 1998, and Sri Lanka winning away in Pakistan in 1995 would have to be up there.

I might make a simplified version of the ratings and post an attachment on this thread at a later date. Until then, I'll be glad to respond to your queries.

Back then the only Test series worth talking about much was the Ashes, and England had won it convincingly in 1910/11, followed by beating both Australia and SA at home in 1912. By 1920/21 it was played after 7 years of no cricket thanks to the first world war, and England had been unbeaten for 12 years, so by DoG's system the series had everything riding on it. The Australians thrashed England 5-0.

The golden age of NZ cricket 1983 - 1987. I remember it well.
Also the low point of Australian cricket.

A lot of great memories of those years. Like hanging out in the school AV room every lunch time, watching cricket with the handful of teaches who were also obsessed with cricket. Or trying to come up with an excuse so I didn't have to go to swimming practice after school while a game was on. Or watching cricket and getting pissed out of my skull at my Hockey coach's place, who had moved his bath tub in front of the TV so he didn't miss any of the game while taking a bath.

Back then the only Test series worth talking about much was the Ashes, and England had won it convincingly in 1910/11, followed by beating both Australia and SA at home in 1912. By 1920/21 it was played after 7 years of no cricket thanks to the first world war, and England had been unbeaten for 12 years, so by DoG's system the series had everything riding on it. The Australians thrashed England 5-0.

Close, by not quite. The five year period includes the season in question and the closest four seasons to it.

For example, the 2000/01 season catchment period would be:
1998/1999
1999/002000/01
2001/02
2002/03

However, for the 1920/21 season, there was no cricket for the previous 7 years, so there is no option but to have this catchment period:1920/21
1921/22
1922/23
1923/24
1924/25

It works the other way as well: for this current season, the catchment period is:
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/122012/13

It's all about getting a good sample period.

Anyway, that Australian team over a five year period played 17 matches, won 13, drew 4, and lost 1.

Including a 5-0 whitewash over England (tbh, a weak side at the time), 3-0 later in the season in England, 1-0 in South Africa, and 4-1 back home to England in 1924/25.

I'm surprised by how (relatively) low the Australian team of immediately after WWII scores, given their extraordinary dominance from 1946-52 which I wrote about just the other day. The Australian team of 1958/59, for example, scores considerably higher and yet I don't think there'd be a single cricketing observer who considers the Australian team of the late '50s to be superior to that of the late '40s.